Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Development topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Mixed-use proposal for 705 E. Roosevelt draws safety and traffic concerns from West Chicago aldermen
Summary
A developer presented a conceptual plan Sept. 8 to build a four-story mixed-use building at 705 East Roosevelt Road with about 13,000 sq ft of ground-floor commercial and 36 apartments above; aldermen praised the concept but raised traffic, safety and zoning concerns and offered feedback — no approvals were granted.
Get email alerts on the Land Use Development topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
A developer and architect presented a conceptual plan Sept. 8 to build a four-story mixed-use building at 705 East Roosevelt Road in West Chicago, proposing roughly 13,000 square feet of ground-floor commercial space with 36 apartments on the three floors above. Committee members praised the concept but raised repeated traffic, safety and zoning concerns and recommended the petitioner consider alternative locations.
The project team, represented by Himanshu Modi of Nova Design Build, said the property is about two acres in the B‑2 General Business District and has been vacant for about 15 years. Modi said the developer shifted from an all-apartment scheme to a mixed-use model because “a lot of retail centers are vacant,” and mixing residential with first-floor retail would help cover property taxes and operating costs while supporting any retail that locates there: “If retail doesn't get filled up right away, it allows us to pay the property taxes, utility bills and so forth for the development,” Modi said.
Staff told the committee the site would require a planned unit development to allow residential over commercial on a parcel currently designated commercial in the city's future land use plan. Staff also said the property’s odd polygon shape creates a “pinch point” in the southwest corner and that the developer proposes to encroach slightly into front, side and rear setbacks to establish parking. Dan (staff member) told the committee that, if pursued formally, the project would require a traffic‑impact study and that Route 59 is a state route subject to IDOT jurisdiction over curb cuts: “IDOT won't permit a curb cut off of Roosevelt Road,” a staff member said.
Several aldermen said they liked the concept in principle but questioned whether this specific parcel is suitable. Alderman Stout, who said she has lived in the area “for more years than I care to admit to, almost 60 years,” said she sees placing more than 30 residential units at that junction of two major roads as “very problematic” because of traffic, lack of green space and impacts on school buses and emergency access. Alderman Myers and others raised concerns about having only one entrance off Route 59 and one off Sarana Drive and urged a traffic study and possible design changes to improve safety.
Committee members also questioned the viability of first-floor retail at the location, noting existing commercial vacancies nearby and the presence of a convenience/gas station. Staff reminded members that converting the site to all residential would require both a zoning map amendment and a future-land-use amendment. Some aldermen suggested the developer consider Main Street or other parcels better suited to mixed-use development and transit access.
The petitioner said they are comfortable there would be demand for the proposed apartments and indicated potential rents in the neighborhood of $2,000 per unit. Modi described site-specific limitations, including a north-side grade change of about 15 feet that influences parking configuration and circulation.
The committee provided feedback but did not vote on the conceptual plan. Members repeatedly emphasized that the discussion was conceptual only and that formal approvals (a PUD, a traffic study and any required zoning or future‑land‑use changes) would be necessary if the petitioner pursues the project. The petitioner thanked the committee and said it would consider the feedback and next steps.
The development committee did not take formal action on the 705 E. Roosevelt concept; if the petitioner decides to move forward it would return to city staff and the committee with required studies and formal applications.

